ArticleWorld journal of transplantation2025
Comparison of ChatGPT-3.5 and GPT-4 as potential tools in artificial intelligence-assisted clinical practice in renal and liver transplantation.
Article in World journal of transplantation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence advancements for orthopaedic clinical reasoning: longitudinal assessment of newer models (ChatGPT-5, Grok-3, Gemini 2.5 Flash) compared to clinicians.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2026Article
- ChatGPT in liver transplantation: Current applications, limitations, and future directions.World journal of transplantation · 2026Review
- Biomarkers and testing in pathology.Current opinion in urology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundKidney and liver transplantation are two sub-specialized medical disciplines, with transplant professionals spending decades in training. While artificial intelligence-based (AI-based) tools could potentially assist in everyday clinical practice, comparative assessment of their effectiveness in clinical decision-making remains limited.
aimTo compare the use of ChatGPT and GPT-4 as potential tools in AI-assisted clinical practice in these challenging disciplines.
methodsIn total, 400 different questions tested ChatGPT's/GPT-4 knowledge and decision-making capacity in various renal and liver transplantation concepts. Specifically, 294 multiple-choice questions were derived from open-access sources, 63 questions were derived from published open-access case reports, and 43 from unpublished cases of patients treated at our department. The evaluation covered a plethora of topics, including clinical predictors, treatment options, and diagnostic criteria, among others.
resultsChatGPT correctly answered 50.3% of the 294 multiple-choice questions, while GPT-4 demonstrated a higher performance, answering 70.7% of questions (
conclusionGPT-4 consistently provided more accurate and reliable clinical recommendations with higher percentages of full agreements both in renal and liver transplantation compared with ChatGPT. Our findings support the potential utility of AI models like ChatGPT and GPT-4 in AI-assisted clinical practice as sources of accurate, individualized medical information and facilitating decision-making. The progression and refinement of such AI-based tools could reshape the future of clinical practice, making their early adoption and adaptation by physicians a necessity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.